Import risk analysis: Llamas (Lama glama) and alpacas (Vicugna ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

31. Coccidioides immitis 31.1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION 31.1.1. Aetiological agent Coccidioides immitis is a soil-borne fungus. 31.1.2. OIE list Not listed. 31.1.3. New Zealand status Not known to occur in New Zealand and not listed as an unwanted or notifiable organism. 31.1.4. Epidemiology Coccidioides immitis is a dimorphic soil-borne fungus confined to areas of North, Central and South America characterised by alkaline sandy soils and high environmental temperatures. In soil it is present as vegetative mycelia which consist of alternating arthroconidia separated by smaller thin walled non viable cells. When released into the atmosphere the arthroconidia can be inhaled and develop in an infected host into spherules. The organism typically resides in the soil and humans and animals are accidental hosts and do not become infectious. The disease occurs most commonly in humans and dogs (Wernery & Kaaden 2002; Greene 2006). The disease has been described in llamas (Muir & Pappagianis 1982; Fowler et al 1992). 31.1.5. Hazard identification conclusion The disease is confined to hot dry areas of the USA and Central and South America where the fungus is found in the soil. Infected animals and humans are not infectious. Therefore the disease could not be transmitted by camelids and could not establish in New Zealand. Coccidioides immitis is not considered to be a hazard in the commodity. References Fowler ME, Pappagianis D, Ingram I (1992). Coccidioidomycosis in llamas in the United States: 19 cases (1981-1989). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 201(10), 1609-14. Greene RT (2006). Coccidioidomycosis and Paracoccidioidomycosis. In: Greene CE (ed), Infectious Diseases of the Dog and Cat. Section III, Saunders, Elsevier, St Louis. Pp. 598-608. Muir S, Pappagianis D (1982). Coccidioidomycosis in the llama: case report and epidemiologic survey. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 181(11), 1334-7. Wernery U, Kaaden O-R (2002). Coccidioidomycosis. In: Infectious Diseases in Camelids. Second edition, Blackwell Science, Berlin-Vienna. Pp. 255. 114 ● Import risk analysis: Llamas and alpacas from specified countries MAF Biosecurity New Zealand
32. Trypanosoma spp. 32.1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION 32.1.1. Aetiological agents Trypanosoma evansi is the aetiological agent of surra in animals. Humans are not susceptible to infection. Trypanosoma cruzi infects humans and animals and is the aetiological agent of Chagas disease in humans. Trypanosoma vivax infects animals but not humans and is the aetiological agent of the disease nagana in animals. Other pathogenic trypanosomes such as Trypanosoma congolense, Trypanosoma brucei and Trypanosoma simiae are typically African parasites and do not occur in any of the countries relevant to this risk analysis. 32.1.2. OIE list Surra is listed as a disease of multiple species and trypanosomosis (tsetse-transmitted) is listed as a disease of cattle. However, there are no Code chapters for either. Of the tsetse fly transmitted trypanosomes, only Trypanosoma vivax is relevant to this risk analysis as it is the only species that is transmitted mechanically by biting flies in South America. 32.1.3. New Zealand status T. evansi and Trypanosoma spp. are classified as unwanted, notifiable organisms (MAF 2009). 32.1.4. Epidemiology T. evansi T. evansi is mechanically transmitted by biting flies. It occurs in Northern Africa, the Middle East, some areas of Russia, India, China, South-East Asia (as far east as Timor) and South America (DAFF 2007; Luckins 2008; Uilenberg 1998). It causes surra, most importantly in camels and horses, but also in cattle, buffaloes, sheep and other domestic and wild animals. The occurrence of the disease in camelids is controversial. Some authors list camelids as animals in which surra occurs (Australian Government 2007; Uilenberg 1998). In other authoritative reviews, llamas are not mentioned as animals in which it occurs (DAFF 2007; Luckins 2008; Uilenberg 1998). Wernery & Kaaden (2002) state that “Trypanosomosis has not been reported in South American camelids despite the presence of T. evansi in cattle and horses” Fowler states that “It (surra) has also been reported from Central and South America, although trypanosomiasis has not been reported from South American camelids in these areas”. He also states that “ However, trypanosomes have been isolated from llamas imported into the United States from Chile” giving as reference a personal communication from a reputable source (Fowler 1992). However, the species of trypanosome that was isolated is not specified. One expert has stated that llamas may be infected with T. evansi but specific references to cases are not given (Uilenberg 1998). No MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Import risk analysis: Llamas and alpacas from specified countries ● 115
Page 1 and 2:
Import risk analysis: Llamas (Lama
Page 3 and 4:
MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Pastora
Page 5 and 6:
CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 1. Int
Page 7 and 8:
Acronyms CDC United States Centers
Page 9 and 10:
Executive Summary This risk analysi
Page 11 and 12:
1. Introduction The importation of
Page 13 and 14:
Figure 1. The risk analysis process
Page 15 and 16:
Following public consultation on th
Page 17 and 18:
Disease agent Foot and mouth diseas
Page 19 and 20:
Disease agent PROTOZOA Eimeria alpa
Page 21 and 22:
Bacteria, rickettsias and spirochae
Page 23 and 24:
McKenna PB (2009). An updated check
Page 25 and 26:
6. African horse sickness virus 6.1
Page 27 and 28:
7. Bluetongue virus 7.1. HAZARD IDE
Page 29 and 30:
8. Borna virus 8.1. HAZARD IDENTIFI
Page 31 and 32:
8.2.2. Risk estimation Since entry
Page 33 and 34:
It has been suggested that as many
Page 35 and 36:
Therefore, since the the consequenc
Page 37 and 38:
Givens MD, Heath AM, Brock KV, Brod
Page 39 and 40:
10. Bovine herpesvirus type 1 10.1.
Page 41 and 42:
10.2.2. Exposure assessment Importe
Page 43 and 44:
Bartha A, Haidu G, Aldassy P, Paczo
Page 45 and 46:
11. Epizootic haemorrhagic disease
Page 47 and 48:
12. Eastern equine encephalitis vir
Page 49 and 50:
13. Equine herpesvirus type 1 13.1.
Page 51 and 52:
13.2.2. Exposure assessment Assumin
Page 53 and 54:
Davison AJ, Erberle R, Hayward GS,
Page 55 and 56:
1993). According to Fowler (1992),
Page 57 and 58:
Veterinary Authorities should requi
Page 59 and 60:
15. Louping-ill virus 15.1. HAZARD
Page 61 and 62:
16. Rabies virus 16.1. HAZARD IDENT
Page 63 and 64:
� Rabies is a serious zoonotic di
Page 65 and 66:
17. Vesicular stomatitis virus 17.1
Page 67 and 68:
incubation period of the disease. T
Page 69 and 70:
quarantined with protection from in
Page 71 and 72: Pharo HJ (1999). Vesicular stomatit
Page 73 and 74: 18.1.5. Hazard identification concl
Page 75 and 76: necessarily be competent vectors, a
Page 77 and 78: 20. Bacillus anthracis 20.1. HAZARD
Page 79 and 80: 20.3. RISK MANAGEMENT 20.3.1. Optio
Page 81 and 82: 21. Brucella spp. 21.1. HAZARD IDEN
Page 83 and 84: 21.2.4. Risk estimation Since entry
Page 85 and 86: Gilsdorf MJ, Thoen CO, Temple RM, G
Page 87 and 88: References References marked * were
Page 89 and 90: Serological tests include the compl
Page 91 and 92: with negative results using the com
Page 93 and 94: 24. Coxiella burnetii 24.1. HAZARD
Page 95 and 96: � Although quarantine is not suit
Page 97 and 98: 25. Leptospira serovars 25.1. HAZAR
Page 99 and 100: immune response is a low titre that
Page 101 and 102: Retention of this empty Chapter, wi
Page 103 and 104: 26. Mycobacterium bovis 26.1. HAZAR
Page 105 and 106: 26.3. RISK MANAGEMENT 26.3.1. Optio
Page 109 and 110: without any measures for detecting
Page 113 and 114: Animals become septicaemic a few ho
Page 115 and 116: 29. Salmonella spp. 29.1. HAZARD ID
Page 117 and 118: animals and sporadic cases of salmo
Page 119 and 120: Hansen KR, Nielsen LR, Lind P (2006
Page 121: Camelidae diseases, or as transmitt
Page 125 and 126: T. evansi and T. vivax occur in Sou
Page 127 and 128: 5. Animals to be imported could be
Page 129 and 130: (Kittelberger et al 2002) and is th
Page 131 and 132: � The role of an IHS is to specif
Page 133 and 134: 34. Internal parasites 34.1. HAZARD
Page 135 and 136: 34.1.4.2. Trematodes The following
Page 137 and 138: 34.2.4. Risk estimation Since entry
Page 139 and 140: 35. Mites, lice and fleas 35.1. HAZ
Page 141 and 142: 35.2. RISK ASSESSMENT 35.2.1. Entry
Page 143 and 144: N.B. This measure reflects the curr
Page 145 and 146: Hard ticks (Ixodidae) have a lifecy
Page 147 and 148: 1. Camelids could be treated with p
Page 149 and 150: the Eastern Cape and North-West Pro
Page 151 and 152: The larvae reach maturity about 4-8
Page 153 and 154: exploration, debriding and flushing
Page 155 and 156: a. all animals have been re-examine
Page 157 and 158: 38. Weeds and seeds 38.1. HAZARD ID
Page 159 and 160: edding materials include wood shavi
show all

Import risk analysis: Llamas (Lama glama) and alpacas (Vicugna ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?